Anal S,

At laest there is a cure for ignorance

theignorantone

anythingformoney wrote on Feb 28^th, 2005 at 8:49pm:


The comment by Professor David T. Lykken (whom I hold in the highest regard) to which you refer appears at p. 277 of the 2nd edition of A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector, which was published in 1998. Here it is in context:

Quote:


I might add that, as noted in the acknowledgments section of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, Dr. Lykken was among those who were kind enough to review and comment on our pre-publication draft, and he provided important comments on the chapter dealing with countermeasures.

anythingformoney wrote on Feb 28^th, 2005 at 8:49pm:


A.S.,

You are missing the utility factor. The CVSA, properly given, may have more utility than the polygraph. Most people automatically have higher regard for newer technology - even when unwarranted. Everybody and their grandparents has heard of the polygraph and knows it is old. Leveraging that belief in new tech, the CVSA may even have more utility in extracting confessions than polygraph. (I phrased it that way just for you George!)

Hell, two kids here in Escondido falsely confessed to murder during CVSA post test interrogation. It was a bitch when the DA had to discredit those confessions during the trial of the SOB later caught with DNA evidence.

marty

Yes, I'd have to concur with regard to voice stress analysis.  I think if George really wanted to help society (since Lykken says no good can come to society by trying to deceive polygraphers) he'd be renaming this site AntiVoiceStress.org.  Then he'd actually be attacking something with no credibility.

Hi,
Sorry about the misunderstanding.  Well, I can't help you then as I didn't lie on my one and only Poly.   

However, on an interesting side note I did pass a recent CVSA for a PD position.  No lies there either, but one funny bit:  this was a Directed Lie "test" and the examiner said that I kept showing signs of stress on a particular DL question, "Am I wearing a tie?"  I was to lie and say no. Apperaantly, I was having trouble with that one, heh.   

If there had been any problems, the only thing I could have done would be to stand my ground, as I don't know of any countermeasures for the CVSA.  And the CVSA is an even bigger joke than the Poly.  Big waste of time.

Cheers.

anythingformoney wrote on Feb 27^th, 2005 at 6:55pm:



No confessions are warranted since I was honest during all phases of my examination.  What I failed to add was perhaps your challenge needs to be modified in order for a true result to be acheived.  I have doubts regarding that many would admit directly that he/she lied outright and employed CMs as such an admission could bring about unwanted attention.  However, I have viewed posts in which the author claims to have lied and employed CMs to "pass."

I was offering to undergo an exam which has attainable ground truth and attempt the use of CMs explained on this site without detection.  I remain willing to do so.

anythingformoney wrote on Feb 27^th, 2005 at 7:53pm:

Anecdotal evidence provided by anonymous persons in response to your challenge will not provide genuine evidence that countermeasures work, just as anecdotal claims by polygraphers to have detected countermeasures do not prove that polgyraphers are able to detect countermeasures at better-than-chance levels.

But peer-reviewed research strongly suggests  that CQT polygraphy is vulnerable to countermeasures that even experienced polygraphers are unable to reliably detect.

Quote:

The finding of the National Acamedy of Sciences that polygraph screening is without validity does not support this assertion.

Quote:

It is true that an innocent person who employs countermeasures and subsequently passes a polygraph examination cannot know for sure that the countermeasures were resonsible for his/her passing. But the same is also true with regard to the guilty person who employs countermeasures and passes. He/she cannot truly know whether or not he/she might have also passed absent the use of countermeasures.

Quote:

While you assert this to be the case, you have not presented any compelling evidence or argument for such. An understanding CQT procedure, as well as peer-reviewed research, strongly suggests that augmentation of reactions to the "control" questions to increase one's chances of passing is more than just a "placebo."

Exactly.  How else are we to believe that countermeasures extolled on this site actually work?  Innocent examinees don't need countermeasures.  For innocent examinees to say that they passed their exam because of countermeasures is like saying that the fizz in carbonated beverages keeps you from getting cancer because the cancer cells are expelled in burps.  Silly, silly, silly.

You dispense a placebo, George, nothing more.

Here I must agree with A.S. He/she is asking for those who produced a false negative result in a real world polygraph examination to post the details of such.

You both need to read my challenge again.  It has nothing to do with setting up an exam with either of you.  I'm looking for people who actually lied to a relevant issue on a polygraph and then overcame their lies through countermeasures.  Are you both admitting that you fit that profile?  If so, 'fess up.

Hi,
I second Polyscam's offer to your challenge.  If you come to me, I'll be more than happy to take you up.

If you are willing to orchestrate and financially provide for an exam in my city, I'll take you up on your challenge.  However, if I'm going to reveal more about myself you must return the courtesy.

Crickets or a fancy verbal dodge?

OK, enough dilly-dallying.  Back to the countermeasures challenge.  Any takers?  Come on, somebody speak up . . . 

That's right, nothing but the sound of crickets in the grass . . .

Criminals, eh?  I'm no criminal and I didn't successfully complete my poly.  My record is nearly snow white.  The only exception is  a non-moving violation citation I received over ten years ago.  I exihibited some very questionable behavior as a youth, but criminal?  I can see the utility of the poly in criminal investigations as a scare tactic.  However, its place in employment screening is of no value.

Quote:


The above techniques need to be employed because criminals don't simply say, "Gee, you got me" when confronted with polygraph results.  It is a good tool to augment such techniques, though.

As for the DoD DIS, who says they don't look at the poly results?  It's simply that poly results backed up with admissions is much, much more compelling and can't be effectively refuted by anyone, whether a believer in the polygraph or not.

"You correctly characterize interrogation as a blend of lying, manipulation, and sometimes aggression"

AS,

  If the polygraph was so accurate, then why do the
above techniques need to be employed ?  The
polygraph is used as only an intimidation tool, which is
supplimented by the above behaviors.  Also, how do
you explain the fact that the DoD DIS (Defense
Investigative Service) does not look at the actual
poly results from NSA (DIA, etc.), but just what the
person was tricked into admitting ?

Quote:


Actually, my name isn't "Hugh."     Good guess, though.  One adjective I haven't used to describe my feelings about this site is anger.  Humor, yes.  Sad, yes.  Misinformation, yes.  Fearmongering, yes.  Silly, oh yes!  But anger, no.  It takes a lot to make me angry.  What you judge to be anger is simply a quick wit and enjoyment in using it to poke fun at short-sighted people who are so willing to buy into information that supports their hopes and conjectures.

You correctly characterize interrogation as a blend of lying, manipulation, and sometimes aggression.  Tried and true methods to extract information from the guilty.  The innocent needn't fear.  The polygraph, besides being much, much more accurate than George and Co. would have you believe, is also an excellent tool of intimidation to extract information from the guilty.  If that's all it were, it would be of value.  Fortunately, there are those of us with actual experience rather than tired rhetoric, regurgitated misinformation, and hopes of revenge who know it actually works, much to the dismay of the tiny minority of polygraph failures who dispense their placebo on this site.

One last thing: I will "get the hell off this site" either when I really do tire of it (which shouldn't take much longer), or when George and Co. tire of me making them look bad, at which time they will find a pretense to get rid of me.

AS,

 I am glad you are tired of my posts, so why don't you
get the hell off this site.  Why don't you just spend time
on the censured site, polygraphplace.com; there you can
sucker in all those unknowing, trusting people.  Yes, I
have taken a number of NSA polys, and although I am
far from an expert on the subject, after reading the
DoDPI Interrogation and Interview Handbook, I could
see that their little acting jobs were scripted from the
manual.  You must be really angry at this site (can't
blame you); I would be angry too, if people started
figuring out that my profession was a scam.   Well,
maybe it is actually better that you keep trashing this
site, that way, newcomers will see polygraphers for
what they really are.  Every time I watch Law-and-Order,
I see the same interrogation techniques (lying,
manipulating, aggression, etc.). Maybe your hostility is
one of those little acting jobs, hugh ?  This site should
be about technical/personal issues, but I looks like you
are trying to make everything an emotional issue. Go
away !

Quote:


I am equally tired of your misguided regurgitations.  I am not "I-SMELL-BS" in disguise, nor have I ever read one of his/her posts.  I have read what Gino has said about those posts, though, and it doesn't sound like there was much substance to them.

My "purpose" is simply to dispel some of the fearmongering going on here.  George, Gino and Co. have nothing to support their agenda other than tired rhetoric and questionable and refutable lab studies.  I have repeatedly said that I can sit here and reguritate lab studies to support my claims just as easily as they can.  The polygraph is widely used simply because it is the best "lie detector" or "truth confirmer" available.  Your "extensive experience" aside, there are those with actual experience on the other side of the table to whom your silly arguments are laughable.

AS,

I'm sure I am not the only one getting real tired of your
fumes; maybe you are, "I-SMELL-BS", in diguise.  I think
it is time your posts are moved to the Discarded Posts
forum.  This is an open forum , unlike
polygraphplace.com, where legitimate concerns are
discussed.  What  is your purpose being here, other
than trying to convince unknowning people to trust
polygraphers.  My extensive experience with NSA's
lying, manipulative polygraphers, says otherwise.

Anal S,

You've got to be a polygraph examiner. I'd recognize that over inflated ego with a lack of credibility anywhere.

Why should anyone reveal any specific details regarding their experiences to you.  You won't return the favor.  If you look at past posts you will find a number of posters who claim they lied with the assistance of CMs and successfully completed a poly.  The simple existence of countermeasures along with the effects produced by CMs are factors which should impress upon people that poly is not exacting enough and somewhat easily fouled.  Simple excuses for the sphincter squeeze - "I was trying not to fart," "I've had gas all day," "Boy that spicy Mexican food last night is setting me off," etc.   Nobody could prove this to be untrue.

Ok, but if no one is willing to stand up and admit that he or she actually passed a polygraph by using countermeasures while lying to a particular "relevant" issue, how are we supposed to believe that they really work?  Just because George and Co. say so?  They can't have it both ways; they can't, with any credibility, tell all the scared little boys and girls that the only way they can ensure that they'll pass a polygraph is by using certain countermeasures, when there appears to be no one out there who will step up and admit that he or she passed the polygraph despite lying to a particular "relevant" issue--especially when one of their oft-cited researchers, Ben-Shakhar, says that such countermeasures do nothing for the innocent examinee.

Their faulty advice is going to get some of those scared little boys and girls into trouble with an experienced polygrapher.  I've seen it happen with my own eyes.

Now Anal:
   
  Do you really think anyone is going to admitt
lying, because we all know these posts can be tracked back to the person who posted them. 

  It would be very dumb to say that they used countermeasures for any thing other than to prevent false positives. 

Here's a "challenge" I originally issued in another thread under another topic.  It has to do with countermeasures:

All of you who actually lied your asses off on relevant issues in a polygraph, and then passed the polygraph despite your lies due to countermeasures, speak up now.  Which relevant questions did you lie to, and which countermeasures did you use to pass?  Before anyone speaks up, make sure you understand what a relevant issue is and what a relevant question is, or you're going to come off sounding like the release of gas through a real anal sphincter.   Also, make sure you read up on the difference between a conclusion of deception and a conclusion of inconclusive.  They are not the same thing, and there are enough ignorant people on this board who don't know the difference in either case, so don't be one of them.   

Speak now.  I have provided referenced studies in another thread that show that countermeasures have no effect on innocent examinees, but may help a guilty examinee produce a false negative.  I want to know if there are any of you who have actually produced a false negative.  Make sure you know what a false negative is, or ask and I or someone else in the know will tell you.